Disposed¶9

Jaswant Singh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2025ABAIL/4735/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail refused - Jaswant Singh Yadav - S.438 Cr.P.C. - Case Crime No. 37 of 2023 (Sections 188, 448, 457, 120-B I.P.C.; Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act), Police Station Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi - specific allegations against applicant - Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 relied upon - liberty to seek regular bail per Satendra Kumar Antil guidelines - Allahabad High Court - Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:108713 - Order Date 9.7.2025.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail refused; liberty reserved to the applicant to seek regular bail before the concerned Court below, to be considered in light of the guidelines laid down in Satendra Kumar Antil. ¶9

Jaswant Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail refused; liberty reserved to the applicant to seek regular bail before the concerned Court below, to be considered in light of the guidelines laid down in Satendra Kumar Antil.

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. ought to be granted to the applicant in respect of Case Crime No. 37 of 2023.

¶2

Court's answer

Perusal of the record shows that there are specific allegations against the applicant.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

This Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good ground for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶6

Key takeaways

The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is refused.ratio¶7
It is open to the applicant to move for regular bail before the concerned Court below; such an application is expected to be considered keeping in mind the guidelines for grant of bail laid down in Satendra Kumar Antil, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.; Order Date 9.7.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:108713) disposed of an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. moved by Jaswant Singh Yadav concerning Case Crime No. 37 of 2023 under Sections 188, 448, 457, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi. Perusal of the record showed specific allegations against the applicant; bearing in mind the considerations enunciated in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Court found that counsel could not point out any good ground for grant of anticipatory bail and refused the prayer. The applicant was left free to seek regular bail before the Court below, whose consideration of such application was expected to keep in mind the guidelines laid down in Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) without fettering judicial discretion or the statutory provisions governing grant of bail.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108713

¶2

Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4735 of 2024 Applicant :- Jaswant Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 37 of 2023 under Sections 188, 448, 457, 120-B I.P.C., and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on anticipatory bail.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.Learned counsel next submits that the applicant has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. He lastly submits that the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

¶7

Learned A.G.A.has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶8

Perusal of the record shows that there is specific allegations against the applicant.. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , has held that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶9

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments made in the present application, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good ground for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is refused.

¶11

However, it is open for the applicant to move regular bail before the concerned Court below. In case, such an application for bail is moved before the concerned Court below, then it is expected that the concerned Court below shall consider and decide the same keeping in mind the necessary guidelines for grant of bail as laid down in the matter of S atendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021), without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail.

¶12

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 9.7.2025/S.Ali

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jaswant Singh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswant Singh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases